Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, Dan Harris <fbsd(at)drivefaster(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
Date: 2007-04-27 19:11:11
Message-ID: 200704271211.12439.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-performance
Bill,

> The only one that seems practical (to me) is random_page_cost.  The
> others are all configuration options that I (as a DBA) want to be able
> to decide for myself. 

Actually, random_page_cost *should* be a constant "4.0" or "3.5", which 
represents the approximate ratio of seek/scan speed which has been 
relatively constant across 6 years of HDD technology.  The only reason we 
make it a configuration variable is that there's defects in our cost model 
which cause users to want to tinker with it.

Mind you, that's gotten better in recent versions as well.  Lately I mostly 
tinker with effective_cache_size and the various cpu_* stats rather than 
modifying random_page_cost.

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dan HarrisDate: 2007-04-27 20:27:51
Subject: Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
Previous:From: Ray StellDate: 2007-04-27 18:52:25
Subject: Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-04-27 19:18:20
Subject: Re: postgres.exe - Entry point not found (PostgreSQL 8.3 devel)
Previous:From: Chris BrowneDate: 2007-04-27 19:01:37
Subject: Re: Processing a work queue

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group